Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1167/2021 on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1167 of 2021
15TH JULY, 2021
Mr. Aditya Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
of Uttarakhand.
ORDER:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The petitioner has filed the present writ
petition, inter alia, on the ground that Swami Vishnu
Dev Sadhu, disciple of Swami Anant Praksah Sadhu
Udasin Ji Maharaj, executed a Trust Deed in the name of
Vishnu Dham Trust on 24.06.1988, and the same was
registered on 16.07.1988. In the aforesaid Trust Deed,
it is clearly mentioned that during his lifetime Swami
Vishnu Dev Sadhu, disciple of Swami Anant Praksah
Sadhu Udasin Ji Maharaj, will be the Chairman of the
Trust, and after his death the petitioner will be the
Chairman of the said Trust. Swami Vishnu Dev Sadhu,
disciple of Swami Anant Praksah Sadhu Udasin Ji
Maharaj, died on 14.09.2012 due to ill health. After the
death of Swami Vishnu Dev Sadhu, the petitioner got all
the rights of Chairman, and being the Chairman of the
Trust, the petitioner amended the Trust Deed dated
16.07.1988 on 05.07.2013, and elected new members
of the Trust. The respondent no. 4, who is a helper in
the Ashram since the time of Swami Vishnu Dev Sadhu,
started harassing the petitioner for dire consequences.
As a result of the same, the petitioner filed a suit for
eviction as well as permanent injunction. Along with the
aforesaid suit, the petitioner also filed an application
under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 CPC for
seeking temporary injunction. During the pendency of
the aforesaid suit, the respondent no. 4 failed to appear
in the matter. Therefore, the learned Court below, by
its order dated 01.08.2014, proceeded ex parte against
the respondent no. 4. The aforesaid suit came up for
orders on 30.03.2018, and the learned Court below
decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. Despite
suffering a decree, the private respondent no. 4, along
with his agents and other antisocial elements, is
continuously threatening the petitioner with dire
consequences, with a further threat to dispossess the
petitioner from the property in question. Thereafter,
2
after two years, the respondent no. 4 moved an
application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 03.11 2020
for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30.03.2018.
The said application is still pending. Thus, the decree in
favour of the petitioner still holds good on all fours.
2. On 19.06.2021, the petitioner filed execution
of the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2018, which is
pending in the Court of the learned First Additional Civil
Judge (S.D.), Haridwar for adjudication. Due to the
aforesaid litigation, the respondent no. 4 is threatening
the petitioner. Not only this, the respondent no. 4 is
trying to drag the petitioner in false criminal litigations.
Since the respondent no. 4 is a powerful person, and is
in contact with Police, FIR No. 0604, under Section 420
IPC, was lodged at P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar on
19.11.2020 with the allegations that the petitioner,
along with other persons, sold the property of the
Vishnu Dham Trust at Rupees Eighteen Crores. The
aforesaid FIR was challenged by the petitioner by way of
filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 2082 of 2020. By order
dated 11.01.2021, this Court granted interim protection
to the petitioner. Because of continuous threats being
3
extended by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner
submitted a complaint on 12.06.2021 to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Haridwar. Since no action was
taken on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner filed an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the
learned 2nd Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on
21.06.2021. Despite the fact that several complaints
and representations have been made to various
authorities, no action has been taken by the police for
protecting the life and property of the petitioner. Hence,
the present writ petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
reiterated the abovementioned facts. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, despite complaints
made to several authorities, the petitioner is
continuously being threatened by respondent no. 4.
Therefore, he submits that this Court should order the
respondent no. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police,
District Haridwar, to immediately provide police
protection to the petitioner.
4. Hence, this Court directs the respondent no.3,
the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar, to
4
immediately provide police protection to the petitioner
before this Court. The protection shall not be limited to
protecting his life, but would also extend to protecting
any property either owned, or in his possession. In case
respondent no. 4 were to carry out any threat against
the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
immediately take action against him in accordance with
law.
5. Issue notice to respondent no. 4. Rule made
returnable within four weeks. The learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State seeks four weeks' time to
file counter affidavit.
6. List this case after four weeks.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 15th July, 2021
RAHUL
